The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Present CMP is directed against order dated 29^th April 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), First Court, Cuttack passed in C.S.No.160 of 2012, wherein the prayer of Defendant No.8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed by learned trial court to add 3^rd party Defendant No.11.

2. Heard Mr. A.Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.S.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.8, Mr.B.Routray, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.9 and Mr.D.R.Swain, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.7.

3. Present Petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit praying for declaration of right title interest over the suit schedule land, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. After the evidence was closed from the side of the plaintiffs and at the stage of adducing of evidence from the side of Defendant No.8, the petition dated 13^th September 2024 was filed by him to implead one Manasmita Senapati as Defendant No.11 on the ground that she purchased part of suit land pending the lis from Plaintiff No.1 violating the interim order of status quo. The learned trial court allowed such prayer of Defendant No.8 by observing that she is required to be impleaded in the suit as the right to sue survives against her.

4. The principles regarding addition of necessary or proper party in the suit have been well settled. In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, it has been held that:-

“13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code” for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.

15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party